RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If we went this direction, then pending constituencies could participate
without voting until such time that they were approved as a constituency
and then they could vote.  That doesn't sound bad to me.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:16 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on 
> the compositon of the OSC
> 
> 
> 
> On 10 Oct 2008, at 12:02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> >  I am hoping there will be more discussion like this and to 
> encourage 
> > it even more, I second the motion for the amendment.
> 
> thanks.
> 
> > We will probably have to define 'full consensus' more 
> precisely. Would 
> > 'observers' be included in full consensus?  If so, then what is the 
> > difference between being a regular member and an observer?
> 
> I have always assumed it was full consensus of members not 
> including other participants.  for example wile the comments 
> of staff are always highly valued, I did not assume they were 
> figuring into the consensus decisions.  they are list among 
> other participants.  Note: this is different then in the 
> planing team where staff are members of the team due to the 
> nature of the Board's mandate to staff and council.
> 
> If necessary for clarity we could amend the two instances of:
> 
> Decision making for the [P,O]SC
> * Unless otherwise determined by the [P,O]SC members, 
> committee decisions
>    will be made using a "full consensus" process.
> 
> to
> 
> Decision making for the [P,O]SC
> * Unless otherwise determined by the [P,O]SC members, 
> committee decisions
>    will be made using a "full consensus of the members" process.
> 
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
>